MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3121277450

Student Coaching: How Far Can Technology Go?

2016· article· en· W3121277450 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Philip Oreopoulos, Uros Petronijevic

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersUniversity of TorontoCity University of New York
KeywordsCoachingPsychological interventionTest (biology)Scale (ratio)PopulationPsychologySample (material)Medical educationMathematics educationComputer scienceMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One-on-one coaching programs tend to have large effects on student outcomes, but they are costly to scale. In contrast, interventions that rely on technology to maintain contact with students can be scaled at low cost but may be less effective than one-on-one assistance. We randomly assign more than 4, 000 students from a large Canadian university into control, online exercise, text messaging, and one-on-one coaching groups and find large effects on academic outcomes from the coaching program but no effects from either technology-based intervention. A comparison of key design features suggests that future technology-based interventions should aim to provide proactive, personalized, and regular support.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.014
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics→Same topicImpact of Technology on Adolescents→French-language works237,207→